DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment of 06/30/2026 has been entered.
Disposition of claims:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
The amendments of claim 1 has overcome:
the rejections of claim 1-9, 12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111, hereafter Yook) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1, hereafter Song ‘159) as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 2020/0235302 A1) and Barkhouse et al. (US 2011/0297217 A1, hereafter Barkhouse),
the rejections of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781),
the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of He et al. (US 2019/0115555 A1),
the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1),
the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0309739 A1),
the rejections of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Yook et al. (“Efficient hole injection by doping of hexaazatriphenylene hexacarbonitrile in hole transport layer”, Thin Solid Film 2009, vol. 517, page 6109-6111) and Song et al. (US 2022/0209159 A1) as applied to claims 1-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1) set forth in the last Office Action.
The rejections have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments see page 9-11 of the reply filed 06/30/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao) as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 2020/0235302 A1, hereafter Kim), the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama), the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of He et al. (US 2019/0115555 A1, hereafter He), the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) in view of Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1, hereafter Liping), the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0309739 A1, hereafter Song ‘739), and the rejections of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, Inoue) set forth in the Office Action of 04/08/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein the first p-type charge generation layer comprises a first hole-transporting compound and a first p-dopant” such that the Liao does not disclose, teach, or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1.
The rejections refer to Modified light emitting device of Liao (see section 14-16 of the last Office Action), wherein the first p-type charge generation layer consists of Ag, which does not read on the amended claims; thus, the rejections are withdrawn.
However, Liao is still applicable to make new grounds of rejection.
Liao discloses a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part including, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL containing TBADN doped with 4-(di-p-tolylamino)-4'-[(di-p-tolylamino)styryl]stilbene (DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq) (Example 2 in [0135]-[0146]).
Liao teaches a metal compound layer can be disposed between the n-type charge generation layer and the p-type charge generation layer ([0029], Fig. 9). Liao exemplifies MoO3 as the metal compound layer material ([0122]). Liao teaches the thickness of the metal compound layer can be 0.5 nm to 20 nm ([0127]). Liao exemplifies 2 nm as the metal compound layer ([0162]). Liao teaches the metal compound layer prevent interdiffusion and stabilize the driving voltage ([0121]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Liao by incorporating a MoO3 metal compound layer having thickness of 2 nm in-between the n-type charge generation layer and the p-type charge generation layer, as taught by Liao.
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Liao comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a metal compound layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The metal compound layer is equated with a p-type charge generation layer because the metal compound layer necessarily generates holes and injects them into the neighboring p-type doped organic layer. In the resultant device, there are two p-type charge generation layers: one is MoO3 layer and the other is NPB:F4-TCNQ layer. The instant claims do not require a first charge generation layer has a direct contact with the n-type charge generation layer.
The device is equated with a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq); and F4-TCNQ is a wide band gap p-dopant.
Kim evidences a band gap (i.e. HOMO-LUMO gap) of F4-TCNQ is 2.55 eV (Table 3). Yang evidences a band gap of MoO3 is 3.1 eV (page 2246, col. 2, line 12). Thus, a band gap of the second p-type charge generation layer (i.e. 3.1 eV of MoO3) is greater than a band gap of the first p-type charge generation layer (i.e. 2.55 eV of F4-TCNQ).
Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features the amended claims.
The amendment necessitates new grounds of rejection, making this Office Action final.
Applicant’s arguments see page 9-11 of the reply filed 06/30/2026 regarding the rejections of claim 1-9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159, the rejection of claim 10 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159/Hatakeyama, the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159/He, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159/Liping, the rejection of claim 17 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159/Song ‘739, the rejections of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao/Yook/Song ‘159/Inoue set forth in the Office Action of 04/08/2026 have been considered.
Applicant argues that claim 1 has been amended to include “wherein the first p-type charge generation layer comprises a first hole-transporting compound and a first p-dopant” such that the Liao does not disclose, teach, or suggest each and every limitation of claim 1.
The rejection refer to the Light emitting device of Liao as modified by Yook and Song ‘159, wherein a first p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 10 wt% HATCN, 30 nm) (see section 98 of the last Office Action). The first p-type charge generation layer does not comprise a first hole-transporting compound and a first p-dopant. Additionally, even if the assignment of the first and second p-type charge generation layers are switched, the device does not read on the limitation of the amended claim 1 because the bandgap of MoO3 is not larger than the band gap of HATCN. The rejections are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1, hereafter Liao) as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 2020/0235302 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1, 8-9, 12, and 14, Liao discloses a tandem white light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a plurality of emitting parts (“EL units”), and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the neighboring emitting parts are separated by a charge generation layer (“connector” in Abstract and Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
506
850
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Liao exemplify a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part including, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL containing TBADN doped with 4-(di-p-tolylamino)-4'-[(di-p-tolylamino)styryl]stilbene (DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq) (Example 2 in [0135]-[0146]).
Liao does not disclose a specific light emitting device comprising a metal compound layer disposed between the n-type charge generation layer and p-type charge generation layer; however, Liao does teach a metal compound layer can be disposed between the n-type charge generation layer and the p-type charge generation layer ([0029], Fig. 9). Liao exemplifies MoO3 as the metal compound layer material ([0122]). Liao teaches the thickness of the metal compound layer can be 0.5 nm to 20 nm ([0127]). Liao exemplifies 2 nm as the metal compound layer ([0162]). Liao teaches the metal compound layer prevent interdiffusion and stabilize the driving voltage ([0121]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Liao by incorporating a MoO3 metal compound layer having thickness of 2 nm in-between the n-type charge generation layer and the p-type charge generation layer, as taught by Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to prevent interdiffusion and stabilize the driving voltage, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Liao comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a metal compound layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The metal compound layer is equated with a p-type charge generation layer because the metal compound layer necessarily generates holes and injects them into the neighboring p-type doped organic layer. In the resultant device, there are two p-type charge generation layers: one is MoO3 layer and the other is NPB:F4-TCNQ layer. The instant claims do not require a first charge generation layer has a direct contact with the n-type charge generation layer.
The device is equated with a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Alq doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq); and F4-TCNQ is a wide band gap p-dopant.
Kim evidences a band gap (i.e. HOMO-LUMO gap) of F4-TCNQ is 2.55 eV (Table 3). Yang evidences a band gap of MoO3 is 3.1 eV (page 2246, col. 2, line 12). Thus, a band gap of the second p-type charge generation layer (i.e. 3.1 eV of MoO3) is greater than a band gap of the first p-type charge generation layer (i.e. 2.55 eV of F4-TCNQ).
Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claims 1, 8-9 and 14.
With respect to claim 12, at least one of the emitting parts (i.e. 1st and 2nd emitting parts) emits light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 410 nm to about 490 nm since it is known in the art that the DPAVB emitter has a maximum emission wavelength of 467 nm, meeting all the limitations of claim 12.
Regarding claims 6-7, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (metal compound layer, MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The first p-type charge generation layer has a thickness of 30 nm which is not in the claimed range of 1 nm to 10 nm; however, Liao does teach that the p-type charge generation layer of Liao can be preferably 1 to 100 nm ([0119]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by substituting the thickness of the p-type charge generation layer from 30 nm to 1 to 100 nm, as taught by Liao.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Liao(2) comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (metal compound layer, MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 1-100 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
With respect to claim 6, the claimed range of the first p-type charge generation layer (about 1 nm to about 10 nm) is overlapped with the prior art range (1 nm to 100 nm).
With respect to claim 7, the thickness of the first p-type charge generation layer is in a range of 1-100 nm and the thickness of the second p-type charge generation layer is 2 nm. The prior art would read on all the limitations of claim 7, if the thickness of the first p-type charge generation layer is same or larger than 1 nm and less than 2 nm. Thus, the claimed range of the first p-type charge generation layer (same or larger than 1 nm and less than 2 nm) is overlapped with the prior art range (1 nm to 100 nm).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of "about 1-5%" while the claim was limited to "more than 5%." The court held that "about 1-5%" allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of "50 to 100 Angstroms" considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that "for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms]." The court stated that "by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.").
Regarding claims 15-16, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a metal compound layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The device is equated with a light emitting device comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The device has two emitting parts each consisting of red and blue light emitting layers, which does not read on the limitation of the claims; however, Liao does teach that the light emitting device of Liao has a tandem structure and can have four emitting parts (i.e. N in Fig. 3 can be an integer of 4 in [0049]). Additionally, the device in Fig. 3 literally has four emitting parts (i.e. 1st EL unit, 2nd EL unit, (N-1)th EL unit, and Nth EL unit). Liao further teaches each emitting part emits white light (Fig. 3). Liao teaches that white light emitting part can be made of combination of three layers of blue, green, and red layers ([0042], [0046]-[0048], and Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious that the device having four emitting parts each having three light emitting layers (i.e. red, green, and blue) would provide high more intense and brighter emission than the device having two emitting parts each having two light emitting layers (i.e. red and blue) because there are more emitting layers.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by substituting the number of emitting parts (i.e. EL units) from 2 to 4, and substituting red and blue light emitting layers in each emitting part with red, green, and blue light emitting layers, as taught by Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide the device with more intense and brighter white light.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Liao (2) comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, 1st charge generation part (CGP), 2nd emitting part, 2nd CGP, 3rd emitting part, 3rd CGP, 4th emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein each of CGP has a structure of n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), and a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm); and each of emitting part has a structure of a hole transport layer (NPB), a blue LEL, a green LEL, and red LEL, and an electron transport layer (Alq).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781, hereafter Hatakeyama).
Regarding claim 10, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The blue dopant (DPAVB) is not a delayed fluorescent dopant; however, Liao does teach that the organic layers of the device of Liao can be formed from known materials in the art ([0054]).
Hatakeyama discloses delayed fluorescent compounds (DABNA-1, DABNA-2 in Fig. 1) used as the blue dopant with mCBP as a host in a light emitting device (page 2777, col. 2, par. 2, Fig. 4).
Hatakeyama teaches that the compounds provides pure blue emission with narrow FWHM and high quantum efficiency (page 2780, col. 2, last paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by substituting the blue host and dopants with mCBP and DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2), as taught by Liao and Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide pure blue emission with narrow FWHM and high quantum efficiency, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Liao as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (mCBP doped with DABNA-1 or -2), an electron transport layer (Alq), wherein the compound DABNA-1 and DABNA-2 are each a delayed fluorescence dopant.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of He et al. (US 2019/0115555 A1, hereafter He).
Regarding claim 11, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The device does not comprise quantum dots in any of the emission layers; however, Liao does teach each of emitting part (i.e. EL unit) of the device of Lia is a white light emitting part (Fig. 3). Liao further teaches that the organic layers of the device of Liao can be formed from known materials in the art ([0054]).
He discloses a white light emitting device (Fig. 1), wherein the light emitting layer of the device comprises delayed fluorescence material and a quantum dot emitting material (Abstract)
He teaches that the single emitting layer device provides simple structure with high luminous efficiency ([0004]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by substituting the while light emitting layers of each emitting part with a white light emitting layer comprising quantum dots and a delayed fluorescent emitting materials, as taught by Liao and He.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting layer with simple structure and high luminous efficiency, based on the teaching of He.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of white light emitting units (“EL unit”) in the device of Liao would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Liao as modified by He comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), the light emitting layer containing a delayed fluorescent material as a host and a quantum dot as a dopant, an electron transport layer (Alq).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1, hereafter Liping).
Regarding claim 13, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The device does not comprise a green light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 490 nm to about 580 nm; however, Liao does teach each of emitting part (i.e. EL unit) of the device of Lia is a white light emitting part (Fig. 3). Liao further teaches that the organic layers of the device of Liao can be formed from known materials in the art ([0054]).
Liping discloses white light emitting device ([0001]), wherein the light emitting layers comprises a green dopant, Ir(ppy)3 (i.e. the layers between “NPB” and “TPBI” in Fig. 3 and Example 1 of [0068]-[0075]). It is known that the maximum emission wavelength of Ir(ppy)3 is in a range about 490 nm to about 580 nm.
Liping teaches that the device of Liping provides improved efficiency ([0003]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by substituting the while light emitting layers of each emitting part with the white light emitting layers of Liping, as taught by Liao and Liping.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with improved efficiency, based on the teaching of Liping.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of white light emitting units (“EL unit”) in the device of Liao would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Liao as modified by Liping comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), light emitting layers comprising Ir(ppy)3 (i.e. the four layers between “NPB” and “TPBI” in Fig. 3 of Liping), an electron transport layer (Alq), wherein the maximum emission wavelength of Ir(ppy)3 is in a range about 490 nm to about 580 nm.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0309739 A1, hereafter Song ‘739).
Regarding claim 17, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
The device does not comprise a capping layer.
Song ‘739 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a capping layer disposed on the second electrode ([0014]; capping layer (70) and second electrode (60) in Fig. 1, [0042], and [0049] ). Song ‘739 exemplifies a capping layer comprising IDE406 which has a refractive index of 1.8 ([0119]).
Song ‘739 teaches that the organic light emitting device provides enhanced efficiency ([0012]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by incorporating a capping layer comprising IDE406 on the second electrode (cathode) of the device, as taught by Song ‘739.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide enhanced efficiency based on the teaching of Song ‘739.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Liao as modified by Song ‘739 comprising a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, a second electrode, and a capping layer (IDE406), wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liao et al. (US 2006/0040132 A1) as applied to claims 1, 6-9, 12, and 14-16 above, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1, Inoue).
Regarding claims 18-20, the Modified light emitting device of Liao reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode, a 1st emitting part, n-type charge generation layer (Ag doped with Li, 30 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (MoO3, 2 nm), a first p-type charge generation layer (NPB doped with 4 vol. % F4-TCNQ, 30 nm), 2nd emitting part, and a second electrode, wherein the 1st and the 2nd emitting parts each comprises a hole transport layer (NPB), a red light emitting layer (LEL), a blue LEL (TBADN doped with DPAVB), an electron transport layer (Alq).
Liao does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising a thin film transistor and a touch screen layer.
Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (personal computer in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified light emitting device of Liao and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic apparatus (i.e. personal computer) containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified light emitting device of Liao and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor.
Claim 1-2, 4-8, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1, hereafter Song ‘475) as evidenced by Kim et al. (US 20200235302 A1, hereafter Kim).
Regarding claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, Song ‘475 discloses a tandem light emitting device (Fig. 16B, [0113]) comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer (HTL1), an emission layer (EML1), an electron transport layer (ETL1) an n-type charge generation layer (220a), and a p-type charge generation layer (220b), a hole transport layer (HTL2), an emission layer (EML2), and electron transport layer (ETL2), and a second electrode (cathode), wherein the p-type charge generation layer includes alternative sublayers of doped (120b), undoped (120a), doped (120b), and undoped (120a) p-type charge generation sublayers.
Song ‘475 exemplifies HATCN doped with 5% dopant as a doped p-type charge generation sublayer material, and neat HATCN as an undoped p-type charge generation sublayer material (i.e. the host material)(Table 7). Song ‘475 exemplifies NPB as the dopant material (Table 5, [0091], [0053]). Song ‘475 teaches the thickness of the doped p-type charge generation layer (120b in Fig 12) to be 2-10 nm ([0102]). Song ‘475 teaches the undoped charge generation layer (120a) has similar thickness as the doped charge generation layer (120b) (Fig. 16B).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the light emitting device of Song ‘475 (Fig. 16B) by incorporating HATCN as the undoped p-type charge generation layer material (120a) and HATCN doped with 5% NPB as the doped p-type charge generation layer material (120b) with the thickness of each of the layers (120a and 120b) to be 2-10 nm, as taught by Song ‘475.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). The substitution of the exemplified host and p-dopant materials and the exemplified thicknesses in the device of Song ‘475 would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a p-type charge generation layer (HATCN doped with 5%NPB, 2-10 nm), a hole transport layer (HATCN, 2-10 nm), a p-type charge generation layer (HATCN doped with 5%NPB, 2-10 nm), a hole transport layer (HATCN, 2-10 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode).
None of instant claims require the claimed p-type charge generation layer to be made of a homogenous mixture of constituting materials; that is, a combined layer made of multiple layers comprising at least one p-type charge generation layer is equated with a p-type charge generation layer.
The p-type charge generation layer contacting the n-type charge generation layer (i.e. the first underlined part above) is equated with a first p-type charge generation layer. The combined layer of the neat HATCN layer, the NPB-doped HATCN layer, and the neat HATCN layer (i.e. the second underlined part above) are equated with a second p-type charge generation layer.
The Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 is equated with a light emitting device comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
Applicant recites “a band gap of the second p-type charge generation layer”, indicating any band gap of any material of the second p-type charge generation layer can read on the limitation. The second p-type charge generation layer includes HATCN; thus, “a band gap of the second p-type charge generation layer” is the band gap of HATCN. Similarly, Applicant recites “a band gap of the first p-type charge generation layer”, indicating any band gap of any material of the first p-type charge generation layer can read on the limitation. The first p-type charge generation layer includes NPB; thus, “a band gap of the first p-type charge generation layer” is the band gap of NPB.
The band gap of HATCN being 3.48 eV is larger than the band gap of NPB (“NPD”) being 3.15 eV, as evidenced by Kim (Table 3).
The Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14.
Claims 9-10 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781).
Regarding claims 9-10 and 12, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
The Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 does not have a delayed fluorescent dopant in the emission layers.
Hatakeyama discloses delayed fluorescent compounds (DABNA-1, DABNA-2 in Fig. 1) with maximum emission wavelength of 460 and 469 nm and used as the blue dopant with mCBP as a host in a light emitting device (page 2777, col. 2, par. 2, Fig. 4).
Hatakeyama teaches that the compounds provides pure blue emission with narrow FWHM and high quantum efficiency (page 2780, col. 2, last paragraph).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Liao by incorporating a blue host mCBP and a blue delayed fluorescent dopant DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2), as taught by Hatakeyama.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide pure blue emission with narrow FWHM and high quantum efficiency, based on the teaching of Hatakeyama.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Song ‘475 as modified by Hatakeyama comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant; wherein at least one emitting part emits blue light with maximum emission wavelength in range of 410 nm to 490 nm.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Hatakeyama et al. (“Ultrapure Blue Thermally Activated Delayed Fluorescence Molecules: Efficient HOMO–LUMO Separation by the Multiple Resonance Effect”, Adv. Mater. 2016, vol. 28, page 2777-2781).
Regarding claim 11, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
The device does not comprise quantum dots in any of the emission layers.
He discloses a white light emitting device (Fig. 1), wherein the light emitting layer of the device comprises delayed fluorescence material and a quantum dot emitting material (Abstract)
He teaches that the single emitting layer device provides simple structure with high luminous efficiency ([0004]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 by incorporating quantum dots and a delayed fluorescent emitting materials in each of emission layers, as taught by He.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide a light emitting device with simple structure and high luminous efficiency, based on the teaching of He.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Song ‘475 as modified by He comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant; and each light emitting layer contains a delayed fluorescent material as a host and a quantum dot as a dopant.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Liping et al. (US 2014/0167014 A1).
Regarding claim 13, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
The device does not comprise a green light having a maximum emission wavelength in a range of about 490 nm to about 580 nm.
Liping discloses white light emitting device ([0001]), wherein the light emitting layers comprises a green dopant, Ir(ppy)3 (i.e. the layers between “NPB” and “TPBI” in Fig. 3 and Example 1 of [0068]-[0075]). It is known that the maximum emission wavelength of Ir(ppy)3 is in a range about 490 nm to about 580 nm.
Liping teaches that the device of Liping provides improved efficiency ([0003]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 by substituting the light emitting layers of each emitting part with the white light emitting layers of Liping, as taught by Liping.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting device with improved efficiency, based on the teaching of Liping.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Song ‘475 as modified by Liping comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant; and each light emitting layer contains Ir(ppy)3, wherein the maximum emission wavelength of Ir(ppy)3 is in a range about 490 nm to about 580 nm.
Claims 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Liao et al. (US 2006/0235302 A1).
Regarding claims 15-16, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
The device does not have four emitting units.
Liao discloses tandem white light emitting element comprising four white light emitting parts (EL unit in Fig. 3). Liao teaches each white light emitting part can be formed by stacking red, green, and blue sublayers ([0047], Fig. 5).
Liao teaches the device provides high luminance efficiency and high brightness ([0009]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 by incorporating white emission layer and staking four light emitting units, as taught by Liao.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide white light emitting tandem device with high luminance efficiency and high brightness, based on the teaching of Liao.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a first light emitting part, a first charge generation part, a second light emitting part, a second charge generation part, a third light emitting part, a third charge generation part, and a fourth light emitting part, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein each light emitting part comprises a hole transport layer, an emission layer, an electron transport layer; and each charge generation part comprises an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm); and each emission layer comprises a stack of blue, green, and red sub emission layers.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Song et al. (US 2011/0309739 A1).
Regarding claim 17, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
The device does not comprise a capping layer.
Song ‘739 discloses an organic light emitting device comprising a capping layer disposed on the second electrode ([0014]; capping layer (70) and second electrode (60) in Fig. 1, [0042], and [0049] ). Song ‘739 exemplifies a capping layer comprising IDE406 which has a refractive index of 1.8 ([0119]).
Song ‘739 teaches that the organic light emitting device provides enhanced efficiency ([0012]).
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 by incorporating a capping layer comprising IDE406 on the second electrode (cathode) of the device, as taught by Song ‘739.
The motivation of doing so would have been to provide enhanced efficiency based on the teaching of Song ‘739.
Furthermore, the modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A).
The modification provides Light emitting device of Song ‘475 as modified by Song ‘739 comprising a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer (mCBP, DABNA-1 (or DABNA-2)), electron transport layer, a second electrode (cathode), and a capping layer (IDE406), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Song et al. (US 2014/0183475 A1) as applied to claims 1-2, 4-8, and 14, further in view of Inoue et al. (US 2016/0028027 A1).
Regarding claims 18-20, the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 reads on all the features of claim 1 as outlined above.
The device comprises a first electrode (anode), a hole transport layer, a first emission layer, an electron transport layer, an n-type charge generation layer, a first p-type charge generation layer (HATCN as a first hole transporting compound, 5% NPB as a first p-dopant, thickness of 2-10 nm), a second p-type charge generation layer (sublayer 1 comprising HATCN, sublayer 2 comprising HATCN doped with 5% NPB, and sublayer 3 comprising HATCN, total thickness of 6-30 nm), a hole transport layer, a second emission layer, electron transport layer, and a second electrode (cathode), wherein in the second p-type charge generation layer HATCN is a hole transporting compound and NPB is a wide band gap p-dopant.
Song ‘475 does not disclose a specific electronic apparatus comprising the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475, a thin film transistor, and a touch screen layer.
Inoue discloses an electronic apparatus (personal computer in Fig. 7B2 and [0170], [0174]) which comprises a touch screen layer (7210 in Fig. 7B2 and [0174]).
Inoue teaches a display part of an electronic apparatus (“light-emitting device” in [0138] and Figs 2A and 2B) comprising a thin film transistor (FET 611 in [0142]), wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device (“light-emitting element”) is electrically connected to one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor.
At the time the invention was effectively filed, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 by incorporating it into the display part of an electronic apparatus containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to a one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor, as taught by Inoue.
The modification would have been a combination of prior art elements according to known material to achieve predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(A). Substitution of the light emitting devices in an electronic apparatus would have been one known element for another known element and would have led to predictable results. See MPEP 2143(I)(B).
The modification provides an electronic apparatus (i.e. personal computer) containing a touch screen layer, wherein the electronic apparatus comprises the Modified light emitting device of Song ‘475 and a thin film transistor, wherein the first electrode of the light emitting device is electrically connected to one of source and drain electrodes of the thin film transistor.
Claim Objections / Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
As outlined above, Liao (US 2006/0040132 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Liao teaches tandem light emitting device comprising a first p-type charge generation layer comprising a first hole transporting compound and a first p-dopant, and a second p-type charge generation layer comprising a wide band gap p-dopant; however, Liao does not teach that the second p-type charge generation layer comprising a host and a wide band gap p-dopant, wherein the wide band gap p-dopant is represented by Formula 1, as required in the instant claim 3.
As outlined above, Song (US 2014/0183475 A1) is a representation of the closest prior arts. As described in more detail above, Song ‘475 teaches tandem light emitting device comprising a first p-type charge generation layer comprising a first hole transporting compound and a first p-dopant, and a second p-type charge generation layer comprising a wide band gap p-dopant; however, Song ‘475 does not teach that the second p-type charge generation layer comprising a host and a wide band gap p-dopant, wherein the wide band gap p-dopant is represented by Formula 1, as required in the instant claim 3.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEOKMIN JEON whose telephone number is (571)272-4599. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:30am to 5:00pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, JENNIFER BOYD can be reached at (571)272-7783. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/SEOKMIN JEON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1786
Prosecution Insights